Translator: Cecilia Ferilli Auditor: Sofia Ramundo
The title of my talk says: ‘Science is not a democracy’,
the scientific process is not a democratic process.
And I imagine many of you will be twisting their noses,
because we consider democracy, democratic processes –
We take this concept of democratic process very seriously.
But when I was invited, I decided to talk about this topic
because I had firsthand to discuss
of the fact that ‘Science is not a democracy’.
But to present this episode, I have to briefly introduce my research.
I study these classes of molecules, which are the inositol pyrophosphates;
and in particular I have to introduce a precursor of these molecules:
what is called ip6.
The ip6 is an inositol sugar, with 6 phosphate groups attached,
so the name inositol is phosphate, abbreviated ip6.
This molecule is present in all our cells,
but it is particularly abundant in plants.
In fact it is also called phytic acid, in English, or phytic acid.
It accumulates mainly in seeds; is present in the beans –
100 grams of beans contain 5 to 10 grams of ip6.
This causes the ip6 to be a natural product,
which is extracted at very low cost from plants,
and these characteristics have meant that the industry, especially the US,
sell the ip6 as a food supplement.
So he started to introduce the ip6
as a panacea, an ideal cure for many diseases.
Treats diabetes, prevents the formation of kidney stones,
lowers cholesterol, reduces the risk of heart attack
and of course it also serves to cure cancer.
Having said this,
two years ago I had the pleasure of collaborating with Robin Irvine,
one of the greatest scientists in my field of research,
of the University of Cambridge.
And together with Robin we have developed a new method for the analysis of IP6.
And with this method we went to see if the ip6 was present in human fluids:
in our blood and in our urine.
And we discovered that ip6 is absent from these human fluids.
All scientists at the end of their research
they must publish their results in a scientific journal.
And with Robin we succeeded
to publish this work on this scientific journal.
And at the end of our research
we conclude that,
since the ip6 is not present in the blood,
the beneficial effect of IP6, given for real by this industry,
it can not be manifested
since the ip6 can not be transported from the blood to the target organ.
Therefore we advise against the use of ip6 as a food supplement.
Of course, the day after this work was published,
we received tens and hundreds of opposing emails that accused us,
and that they were against our point of view.
I’ll show you,
some of these emails were pleasant to read
because they were practically ridiculous, like the following,
in which this person said
that with 4 grams of ip6 a day had obtained
‘100% of diagnosis of chronic fungal infection of thumbnail’.
Practically, ip6 treated fungal infections in the feet.
We also had emails saying that the ip6 helped grow hair
so it was a miraculous molecule.
Other emails were a little more elaborate, like the following.
Of course he says that ip6
it also treats neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s;
but I want to get your attention
on the sentence highlighted in yellow.
In this sentence,
the author of this mail says that
‘the vast preponderance of scientific report
is set against your opinion, you are a distinct minority. ‘
Which translated into Italian, means:
‘The vast majority of scientific publications
it is absolutely contrary to your position.
You are in a clear minority. “
But science is not a democracy.
A scientific process is not a democratic process.
A scientific fact does not become truth
just because most people say it’s true.
The only referee of truthfulness
it is the quality and reproducibility of the experimental data.
So even if we are the only ones to say
that the ip6
it gives no effect,
our experimental acts
they are high reproducible.
And so, even if we are the only ones to say something,
we are on the right side of the discussion.
Now I want to give you another example, a much more important example of IP6.
A historical example.
Let’s go back a few hundred years,
at the time of Galileo Galilei,
and we make a very democratic referendum:
let’s make the people decide
if the Earth goes around the Sun or if the Sun goes around the Earth.
At the time of Galileo, according to you, where would the cross end?
There would have been a plebiscite:
everyone, except one, would have said
that the Sun goes around the Earth.
But the only referee of truthfulness
now we know how quality and reproducibility have been
experimental data on the movement of the planets
generated by Galileo,
that clearly at the time
he had failed to change public opinion
and he had risked his life for his ideas.
At the time the Church used biblical texts
for driving
public opinion;
but the biblical texts are not reproducible, they can not be tested in the laboratory.
Today the Church has lost its temporal power,
but there are other lobbies,
other political or cultural ideologies
using what scientists call “pseudoscience.”
Pseudoscience is a science that can not be experimentally reproduced,
which attempts to change public opinion.
And I believe that the only difference between science and pseudoscience
both the approach to the democratic concept.
Pseudoscience, as opposed to science,
seek democratic consensus,
but not from other scientists, but mainly from public opinion,
to change the laws and to have repercussions,
mainly for their personal economic interest.
There are many pseudo-scientific arguments that are discussed around the world:
genetically modified organisms,
the greenhouse effect, the link between autism and vaccinations.
But let’s go back to our home.
There have been two pseudo-scientific discussions in the last decades,
that for a researcher working abroad,
for an Italian who works abroad,
they have in a certain sense been ashamed of the debate they have created in Italy.
These pseudo-scientific discussions have had international resonance,
so there has been a lot of talk about it abroad.
And I’m talking about the Di Bella method and the Stamina protocol.
And in both cases – the Di Bella method until the late 90s –
he has bypassed, he has gone beyond the scientists,
scientists were not believed
who openly declared
their negativity on the Di Bella method.
And we tried to change public opinion
to induce the state to subsidize research
that was made by spending millions of euros,
and that gave negative results.
Maybe that’s why, maybe this experience
has allowed current politicians to block the Stamina protocol
which, I can tell you, was based on fresh water.
But the media process that was created in the previous two years
he had almost managed to change Italian public opinion
and to almost invest
several million euros
on a protocol that had not passed any scientific evidence.
So I want to conclude by saying: do not be afraid of scientists.
The mentis form of a scientist
it is an objective, non-subjective mental form.
The scientific method, the objective analysis of the data,
their veracity, experimental reproducibility,
they are principles that should be applied
not only in research laboratories, but in every aspect of public life.
And even if science is not democratic,
democracy, the common good, are guaranteed by science.
Thank you.
(Applause)
The title of my talk says: ‘Science is not a democracy’,
the scientific process is not a democratic process.
And I imagine many of you will be twisting their noses,
because we consider democracy, democratic processes –
We take this concept of democratic process very seriously.
But when I was invited, I decided to talk about this topic
because I had firsthand to discuss
of the fact that ‘Science is not a democracy’.
But to present this episode, I have to briefly introduce my research.
I study these classes of molecules, which are the inositol pyrophosphates;
and in particular I have to introduce a precursor of these molecules:
what is called ip6.
The ip6 is an inositol sugar, with 6 phosphate groups attached,
so the name inositol is phosphate, abbreviated ip6.
This molecule is present in all our cells,
but it is particularly abundant in plants.
In fact it is also called phytic acid, in English, or phytic acid.
It accumulates mainly in seeds; is present in the beans –
100 grams of beans contain 5 to 10 grams of ip6.
This causes the ip6 to be a natural product,
which is extracted at very low cost from plants,
and these characteristics have meant that the industry, especially the US,
sell the ip6 as a food supplement.
So he started to introduce the ip6
as a panacea, an ideal cure for many diseases.
Treats diabetes, prevents the formation of kidney stones,
lowers cholesterol, reduces the risk of heart attack
and of course it also serves to cure cancer.
Having said this,
two years ago I had the pleasure of collaborating with Robin Irvine,
one of the greatest scientists in my field of research,
of the University of Cambridge.
And together with Robin we have developed a new method for the analysis of IP6.
And with this method we went to see if the ip6 was present in human fluids:
in our blood and in our urine.
And we discovered that ip6 is absent from these human fluids.
All scientists at the end of their research
they must publish their results in a scientific journal.
And with Robin we succeeded
to publish this work on this scientific journal.
And at the end of our research
we conclude that,
since the ip6 is not present in the blood,
the beneficial effect of IP6, given for real by this industry,
it can not be manifested
since the ip6 can not be transported from the blood to the target organ.
Therefore we advise against the use of ip6 as a food supplement.
Of course, the day after this work was published,
we received tens and hundreds of opposing emails that accused us,
and that they were against our point of view.
I’ll show you,
some of these emails were pleasant to read
because they were practically ridiculous, like the following,
in which this person said
that with 4 grams of ip6 a day had obtained
‘100% of diagnosis of chronic fungal infection of thumbnail’.
Practically, ip6 treated fungal infections in the feet.
We also had emails saying that the ip6 helped grow hair
so it was a miraculous molecule.
Other emails were a little more elaborate, like the following.
Of course he says that ip6
it also treats neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s;
but I want to get your attention
on the sentence highlighted in yellow.
In this sentence,
the author of this mail says that
‘the vast preponderance of scientific report
is set against your opinion, you are a distinct minority. ‘
Which translated into Italian, means:
‘The vast majority of scientific publications
it is absolutely contrary to your position.
You are in a clear minority. “
But science is not a democracy.
A scientific process is not a democratic process.
A scientific fact does not become truth
just because most people say it’s true.
The only referee of truthfulness
it is the quality and reproducibility of the experimental data.
So even if we are the only ones to say
that the ip6
it gives no effect,
our experimental acts
they are high reproducible.
And so, even if we are the only ones to say something,
we are on the right side of the discussion.
Now I want to give you another example, a much more important example of IP6.
A historical example.
Let’s go back a few hundred years,
at the time of Galileo Galilei,
and we make a very democratic referendum:
let’s make the people decide
if the Earth goes around the Sun or if the Sun goes around the Earth.
At the time of Galileo, according to you, where would the cross end?
There would have been a plebiscite:
everyone, except one, would have said
that the Sun goes around the Earth.
But the only referee of truthfulness
now we know how quality and reproducibility have been
experimental data on the movement of the planets
generated by Galileo,
that clearly at the time
he had failed to change public opinion
and he had risked his life for his ideas.
At the time the Church used biblical texts
for driving
public opinion;
but the biblical texts are not reproducible, they can not be tested in the laboratory.
Today the Church has lost its temporal power,
but there are other lobbies,
other political or cultural ideologies
using what scientists call “pseudoscience.”
Pseudoscience is a science that can not be experimentally reproduced,
which attempts to change public opinion.
And I believe that the only difference between science and pseudoscience
both the approach to the democratic concept.
Pseudoscience, as opposed to science,
seek democratic consensus,
but not from other scientists, but mainly from public opinion,
to change the laws and to have repercussions,
mainly for their personal economic interest.
There are many pseudo-scientific arguments that are discussed around the world:
genetically modified organisms,
the greenhouse effect, the link between autism and vaccinations.
But let’s go back to our home.
There have been two pseudo-scientific discussions in the last decades,
that for a researcher working abroad,
for an Italian who works abroad,
they have in a certain sense been ashamed of the debate they have created in Italy.
These pseudo-scientific discussions have had international resonance,
so there has been a lot of talk about it abroad.
And I’m talking about the Di Bella method and the Stamina protocol.
And in both cases – the Di Bella method until the late 90s –
he has bypassed, he has gone beyond the scientists,
scientists were not believed
who openly declared
their negativity on the Di Bella method.
And we tried to change public opinion
to induce the state to subsidize research
that was made by spending millions of euros,
and that gave negative results.
Maybe that’s why, maybe this experience
has allowed current politicians to block the Stamina protocol
which, I can tell you, was based on fresh water.
But the media process that was created in the previous two years
he had almost managed to change Italian public opinion
and to almost invest
several million euros
on a protocol that had not passed any scientific evidence.
So I want to conclude by saying: do not be afraid of scientists.
The mentis form of a scientist
it is an objective, non-subjective mental form.
The scientific method, the objective analysis of the data,
their veracity, experimental reproducibility,
they are principles that should be applied
not only in research laboratories, but in every aspect of public life.
And even if science is not democratic,
democracy, the common good, are guaranteed by science.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Please follow and like us: